Different Responses to tDCS after Stroke in Male and Female Patients: Insights from the NETS Trial
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Upper limb dysfunction is among the most disabling consequences of stroke, yet transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), an extensively investigated adjunct to motor rehabilitation, has not demonstrated consistent benefit in large randomized trials. Unaccounted interindividual variability is a likely contributor, and sex is one plausible source given anatomical and neurophysiological differences affecting tDCS responsiveness. This exploratory post-hoc analysis of the multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled NETS trial examined sex as a moderator of tDCS response. Extending the primary analysis, confined to the primary outcome at end of intervention, all assessment time points were modelled across the 90-day follow-up and outcomes spanning the three domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Methods
NETS randomized 119 patients with subacute ischemic stroke to anodal tDCS (1 mA) over the ipsilesional primary motor cortex or sham stimulation alongside standardized rehabilitation. Longitudinal mixed-effects models with autoregressive correlation structures examined treatment-by-sex interactions for the Upper-Extremity-Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UEFMA; body function), Box-and-Block Test (BBT; activity), and Stroke Impact Scale participation domain (SIS; participation). Sensitivity analyses included continuous-time models and three-way sex-by-treatment-by-time interactions. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations.
Results
Treatment-by-sex interactions were found for the UEFMA and BBT, but not for SIS participation. Female participants receiving active stimulation improved more than those receiving sham, with clinically relevant estimated marginal mean differences of 6.0 points (UEFMA) and 8.4 points (BBT). No relevant treatment effect was observed in males for either measure. Results were consistent across ITT and PP populations.
Conclusions
This exploratory analysis provides preliminary evidence that sex may moderate tDCS response in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation, with effects extending across ICF impairment and activity domains. Together with converging signals from independent trials, these findings suggest that sex-stratified designs may be necessary to detect tDCS efficacy in stroke rehabilitation.
